About Me

I am an old-fashioned American citizen who believes in our traditional values of freedom, truth, and justice. When I see our laws and government subverted and twisted into service of the undemocratic, powerful, corporate oligarchy, I must react with a patriotic defense of our values. I strongly oppose the ongoing destruction of what is left of American democracy and shall give voice to our common cause of freedom.
I invite you to share my thoughts. I also welcome your comments, be they contradictory, corrective, or complimentary. Only one comment and response will be allowed for anonymous trolls. Repeated unidentified trolling will be deleted as spam.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Big Lies and the Truth

Warren Buffet is right. There is class warfare, and his side, the wealthiest one percent of Americans, is winning. He pays a lower percent in taxes than his secretary.

Why is this so? It goes back to the Reagan years when the foxes took control of the henhouse. Anti-tax wealthy elites gained influence in public policy making. Business insiders began to write their own regulations, which means de-regulation in the real world.

This de-regulation continued on throughout the Bush/Clinton/Bush years and ultimately led to the financial collapse in September of 2008. The debacle drained our economy of trillions of dollars and wiped out many of our pensions.

And more recently thanks to the Big Money-friendly Supreme Court, corporate cash is allowed more influence than ever in our elections and on our elected politicians.

The entire Republican Party and many corporate-owned Democrats are not representing most Americans. The radical Right is opposed to an informed public and to democracy itself.

The Right’s war on democracy begins with propaganda, falsehoods, demonization of liberals and moderates, and advances with their campaign to suppress the right of qualified Americans to vote. This is how they politically leverage the tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, and coddling of the elite.

There are many lies being spread by the Far Right through the corporate media. In fact their first Big Lie is “Liberal Media”. GE, Disney, Viacom, FOX(R), etc. are not “liberals”. They are corporations.

Most Americans still want real health care reform, accountability for Wall Street, fair taxes on the rich, and even Obama's jobs bill.

Thus the Right's war on democracy must continue. They must pursue their class warfare against most Americans on behalf of Wall Street and the wealthiest Americans.

You see, it’s not enough for the top one percent to take in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income and control about forty percent of our nation's wealth. Never mind the fact that 25 years ago the corresponding numbers were 12% and 33%. Greed has no limit.

Robert Reich gives us the best breakdown I’ve seen on seven of the primary lies told by Republicans to dupe the public into supporting their exclusive agenda for the wealthy top one percent.

Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton.***Published on Wednesday, October 12, 2011 by Robert Reich's Blog

The Seven Biggest Economic Liesby Robert Reich

The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.

Here’s a short (2 minute 30 second) effort to rebut the seven biggest whoppers now being told by those who want to take America backwards. The major points:

1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and have dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.

2. Higher taxes on the rich would hurt the economy and slow job growth. False. From the end of World War II until 1981, the richest Americans faced a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent or above. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even after all deductions and credits, the top taxes on the very rich were far higher than they’ve been since. Yet the economy grew faster during those years than it has since. (Don’t believe small businesses would be hurt by a higher marginal tax; fewer than 2 percent of small business owners are in the highest tax bracket.)

3. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Wrong again. It means fewer government workers – everyone from teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and social workers at the state and local levels to safety inspectors and military personnel at the federal. And fewer government contractors, who would employ fewer private-sector workers. According to Moody’s economist Mark Zandi (a campaign advisor to John McCain), the $61 billion in spending cuts proposed by the House GOP will cost the economy 700,000 jobs this year and next.

4. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Untrue. With so many Americans out of work, budget cuts now will shrink the economy. They’ll increase unemployment and reduce tax revenues. That will worsen the ratio of the debt to the total economy. The first priority must be getting jobs and growth back by boosting the economy. Only then, when jobs and growth are returning vigorously, should we turn to cutting the deficit.

5. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Wrong. Medicare and Medicaid spending is rising quickly, to be sure. But that’s because the nation’s health-care costs are rising so fast. One of the best ways of slowing these costs is to use Medicare and Medicaid’s bargaining power over drug companies and hospitals to reduce costs, and to move from a fee-for-service system to a fee-for-healthy outcomes system. And since Medicare has far lower administrative costs than private health insurers, we should make Medicare available to everyone.

6. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe it. Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800.

Demagogues through history have known that big lies, repeated often enough, start being believed — unless they’re rebutted. These seven economic whoppers are just plain wrong. Make sure you know the truth – and spread it on.

Dear Heathen... and your profile indicates a principle//Avoid making arguments based on hyperbole, emotion,//

in classic debate terms,what you have done, by not addressing the point, is conceding it. In essence, you have replied to a point by saying, "So What?" That seems excessively emotional and not a refutation.

You have a problem with bail outs? Sure, me too. Keynesian politicians did that, in keeping with their economic theory. If CAPITALISM and the free market been allowed to work, those banks, AIG, GM, etc would have gone under... bad to be sure in the short term but better for us all in the long term.

Instead Obama followed GWB's playbook EXACTLY and tripled down on the stimulus. Predictably... and we did indeed predict it... it made the economy much, much worse. You can babble on about "the eeevil rich" all you want. In the end it's the guy in the white house right now who saved many of the people you're bitching about's fortunes... by redistribution. In truth Obama loves to redistribute. He gives huge give-a-ways to the so called "poor" and the crony capitalists... by force. If you really want change you'll vote for a flat tax. Everyone pays a flat percentage, it's equal, it's fair, transparent, and it works. Herman Cain has the best plan on the table right now.

But instead you'll pull the lever for Obama, and the status quo. You'll go ahead and elect his top donors who BTW... wrote the newest round of "bank regulations" which really insure a monopoly for the following donors. Go ahead and complain that I used Obama's 2008 numbers. You can't find them today, because they're all routed through a bundler PAC. Even less transparent than last time! Best can be pieced together, Obama's top donors for 2011 are -

Yeah, change you could believe in. You got tricked, and you're getting fooled again. Meanwhile you'll bitch and moan about the 9-9-9 "tax increase" while we all get sapped to death paying the invisible inflation tax under Obama.

Price of food is up, fuel is up, housing is up, medical care is up... hell... everything is up because Obama printed a shit ton of money and gave it to the very "rich" you're complaining about.

Dave, Robert Reich is a very smart man. If wisdom were an indicator of stature, Dr. Reich would be a giant among men.

As I have many times in the past, I call for a high income marginal tax rate of at least 70%, as we had during the economic boom years of the 1950s and into the '60s. The so called deficit "crisis" would be solved in short time. As a matter of fact, let's have it indexed to any, and all, increases in military spending. That would possibly curb all the military expansionism we're seeing on almost a monthly basis.

They're just itchin' to invade Iran. The bullshit is cascading through the corporate media just like it did right after 9/11.

Seemed like a plain honest statement to me. I think lies and deception are far more sinister.

Okjimm,Classic debate is the last thing we have around here. That requires real rules to follow.

Our's is more what I would call "thoughtful discussion" with maybe a little humor on the side.

At least that is my intention.

JG,It's not that Americans cannot fix the problems, it is the elite American aristocracy's refusal to give a damn for anything but their greed. Not all of the wealthy, but enough to corrupt our government. As I say, they are the "America second" crowd.

Tom,There are plenty of gullible Americans, but too many others are deliberately mis-informed.

Dave, this is an excellent post, for your part of it and, of course, for Reich's. Forgive me for a bit of nit picking, but it needs clarification. I know what you mean by referring to Buffett's side in your second sentence, but it would be more accurate to say "the wealthiest Americans." It's only Buffett's side in the sense he's rich. What's germane here is where he stands on policy. In that regard, he's actually on the other side.

The Heathen Republican wrote: "'[Buffet] pays a lower percent in taxes than his secretary.'

"You make it sound so sinister. It's simply because his income comes from capital gains, and his secretary is paid a salary."

Sinister? Try insidious and unjust. There is no rational or equitable reason for people to be taxed more on the fruit of their labors than for the money — not infrequently inherited — they invest (or play) in the markets.

Wealthy folks who can't hack being taxed at a just and equitable rate for their capital gains, the poor dears, can bury their swag in the back yard or stuff it in their mattress. That way, they can really show the rest of us.

SW,Yes, Buffet is a rare person of the top percent. The Right can accuse him, like they did FDR, of being a "traitor to his class". That makes him a patriot for democracy.

Free,You’re right that crowds can draw weirdoes. They’re part of the 99%, so I guess we have to let them in. We shun Nazis and racists, though.

Same old yadda yadda eh? Cut taxes on the rich, kick em up for rest of us. Yadda yadda.

You actually made one comment relevant to my post.

If CAPITALISM and the free market been allowed to work, those banks, AIG, GM, etc would have gone under... bad to be sure in the short term but better for us all in the long term.

Not “if” but because. Because capitalism and the corporate market were allowed to play by their own rules the economy collapsed. Bad in the short term, medium term, and long term no matter what, unless serious changes are made and rules restored. Un-regulated Capitalism failed. We would be fools to let them do it again. Party time is soon to be over for bloodsuckers.

The free market DID RULE. It ruled those banks made bad decisions, it ruled they mismanaged assets and it was poised to issue the ultimate punishment... bankruptcy.

Then they got bailed out, and the chief architect of those bail outs is still in the white house. That's not Capitalism, or a free market. That's good old fashioned Mercantilism.

Do you still really think I’m a true believer in Obama and the Democratic Party?

It doesn't matter, you'll still slam that lever down for Obama and stimulus and inflationary taxes and cheap money and crony capitalism next year. What you say is largely irrelevant, your actions don't just speak louder, they resound.

What I can't understand for the life of me, is why or how you could bitch incessantly for 8 years about GWB's economic policy, then when Obama follows the same play-book verbatim... I mean to the letter... and now that "YOUR GUY" is in the White House you defend the shit out of it, as with this latest round of stimulus aka stimulus IV.

Well at least I am consistent. I was against the Keynesian model in 2000 and again in 2004 and again in 2008 and I'm still against it today.

"Well at least I am consistent. I was against the Keynesian model in 2000 and again in 2004 and again in 2008 and I'm still against it today."

You are the Keynesian model. You live it in its totality, each and every day you live off the public trough of the military-industrial-complex. Until you quit the military, you are Keynesian through-and-through.

You may imagine you're against it, when it deals with aspects concerning social welfare and public works, but your whole career is founded upon it. Until you walk away from it, less pension and benefits, you're a believer.

"Then they [the banks] got bailed out, and the chief architect of those bail outs is still in the white house."

You'll really have to explain this one, because if memory serves, The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, (the official name) was enacted October 3, 2008. Now, let me think, wasn't George W. Bush in office then?

Now, please don't get me wrong, because an Obama apologist I am not. He's as corrupt as the day is long, as are all the corporatists who inhabit our government, but it wouldn't hurt if you got your facts right once in awhile.

Maybe they lied to you when you were shuffling around the sand in Iraq, I don't know, or maybe news just doesn't travel very fast over there, but you'll have to trust me on this one: the architect of the bailouts wasn't Obama... unless, of course, you're really referring to Goldman Sachs. If so, then, I'm in agreement with you.

No I don't think so JG, you're being a fool again. I'm exactly positive F.A. Hayek was for having a military. If I were an anarchist I guess I would be a hypocrite, but sorry, I'm a Libertarian and for the Austrian School of economic theory.

All you just did was demonstrate your painful lack of knowledge of economic and political theory. You can't articulate the difference between a limited governmental state and anarchism, and you have an inability to contrast J.M. Keynes and F.A. Hayek. In fact, I bet you have to run right out and Google who these people are.

You'd not only flunk econ 101, you wouldn't pass the SAT class to get into the school. Any school.

Look, I know we're supposed to play nice and everything, but facts are facts, and it's hard to dignify an opinion so rooted in ignorance.

As for TARP, the bill was signed by GWB, it was administered by Barak Obama. For example, he was the one who used bail out funds for AIG and GM. I remember being quite angry about the whole mess reading about it while I was in Iraq actually. The American Recovery and Investment Act was all Obama's though, as was the November 2010 Quantitative Easing. All together, Obama's stimulus spending from his first day on the job till today is in the neighborhood of 3 trillion dollars... that's JUST STIMULUS spending. What did it get us? Zero, nada, nothing, zip, ziltch. bumpkiss. In fact, it made the mess worse, it propped up a lot of bad companies and poor private sector leaders. In an economy in need of a correction, Obama refused to use the chemo. The result ... which we predicted ... is the slow economic decline we see today.

Free,You are obsessed with framing us as Obama supporters yet the exact same is true for you and Bush. You believed every lie he and Cheney spoke.

At least we have the sense to call Obama a corporatist. Like the corporate media, you cannot even recognize the word corporatist, let alone use it for Republicans, who are even more corporatist than Obama.

We have always pointed to the disparity between Obama'a words and deeds. Still I am forced to vote for him because Repubican rule will cost us all even more, not to mention we'd be at war with Iran.

Republicans have NEVER represented the majority of Americans. They work exclusively for the elite. That is what history clearly teaches us. You either don't know that yet, or you don't care.

Free0352, sorry I touched a nerve. I know it must be painful for you to be living a lie.

I'll reply to your second rant, first, and then I'll work backwards. Weren't you distinctly talking about the bank bailouts, when you explicitly said, "Then they got bailed out, and the chief architect of those bail outs is still in the white house." [emphasis my own]

Gee, I can't think of any other bailouts you could have been speaking of, considering that in the previous paragraph you wrote, "It ruled those banks made bad decisions, it ruled they mismanaged assets and it was poised to issue the ultimate punishment..." Pardon me, I could have sworn you were speaking of the bank bailout. Yeah, you remember, the one instigated by Henry Paulson. You know, the Treasury Secretary under Bush. Sorry, my mistake. ;-)

But, maybe you don't know what an architect is?

Oh, one more thing...so, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, up until Bush II, everything was hunky-dory?

Preceding this you said...

"...and you have an inability to contrast J.M. Keynes and F.A. Hayek."

Hey, I know who Hayek is! You're wrong, it's not F.A., it's Salma! I just googled it and found out she's a Mexican actress. Have no idea where you got the idea she went to school in Austria. Wikipedia said it was actually in Mexico City. Wrong again! ;-)

That must be why I didn't vote for him. I supported the Republicans on the war, but that was it. The Bush econ policy was stupid as hell, I didn't like it when Bush did it and I don't like it any more when Obama did it.

My point is, I didn't vote for Bush, but you voted for Obama. You'll do it again too.

As for "corporatist" or whatever that means... I'll say it one time... slowly... so you can understand once an for all.

I support keeping government out of business with as much intensity as your average Democrat supports keeping religion out of government.

I'm all for a separation of economy and state.

Any questions?

Republicans have their uses to a Libertarian. However, any more Democrats are no use to us. You aren't even all that liberal on social issues any more. It's like to only two freedoms Democrats want a person to have is the freedom for a man to marry a man and a woman to have an abortion. The rest must be state regulated in their eyes. Right down to the food we eat.

Republicans have NEVER represented the majority of Americans.

I don't even know what you're saying means. They've won plenty of elections. They not only won in 1984, they won by the largest margin in U.S. Political History. Ronald Reagan got a larger percentage of the vote than George Washington got. You can argue till you're blue in the face about how effective Reagan's Presidency was, but it would be impossible to argue that he wasn't a ridiculously popular President. Only Abe Lincoln beats him in most polls as the greatest President of all time. I think that might be a bit of a stretch myself - but that IS what an average of Americans rated him as.

The point of all that is - Americans have proven time and again the LOVE Conservative ideals. That is sometimes good for Libertarians - like with econ policy - and sometimes bad - like with religious right nanny state finger waging - but that is regardless the cold... hard... fact.

On the opposite of that, progressivism... not so popular. Bill Clinton tried it and abandoned it after his 1994 trouncing. He went from trying to push through a National Health Service which had him in the low 30s in the polls to enacting Welfare Reform which shot him up to the mid 70s. When Bush was invading countries and kicking ass his approval was in the 80s, and when he was signing TARP it was in the 20s. That's a fact. When Obama was running as a moderate he was setting records and after he rammed through ObamaCare he's been plummeting ever since.

Thanks. That’s what I meant. You still believe and support the lies, and therefore support that part of the debt. You just don’t want the elites paying for it. That puts you on the radical fringe of true believers.

You support the right of business to sell tainted food, too? How about credit default swaps? No government regulation at all? Fine. You are on the radical fringe there as well.

You are twisting votes for Republicans into being representation of those voters. Lame, but that’s about all you can do. No matter how you mangle it, Republicans represent Big Money. Not you, not me, and not even the Bible thumpers and brainwashed FOX(R) audience.

Sorry, Reagan the Infallible doesn’t rate as high as you think he does. He’s popularity ranged from 43 to 60%. Looks like Clinton was more popular.

Reagan was not an extraordinarily well-regarded president during his eight years in office. He averaged a 53% job approval rating during his presidency, slightly below average for all U.S. presidents for which Gallup has recorded job approval ratings.

Reagan's ratings were higher than the averages of his three immediate predecessors -- Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon, supporting the arguments of those who contend that one of Reagan's major contributions was to restore confidence in the presidency after the battering it took in the 1970s. But the two presidents who followed Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, each had higher average ratings than Reagan, as did three earlier presidents -- Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Mr. I-can’t-recall-arms-for-hostages with his thug Ollie North writing drafts of martial law suspending the constitution are not so fondly remembered as you think. He would be even less revered when people are shown the consequences of his great “trickle down” lie. Most people don’t know Reagan took the US from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation.

Your fearless leader Bush had three spikes in popularity. 9-11, Early Blitzkrieg in Iraq, and his re-election. Flag waving and military aggression were his only strengths. His trend was downward at all other times. By 2006 Iraq was a mess and he wallowed between 30 and 40% approval. Waaay before Capitalism failed the nation and TARP.

Americans have proven time and again the LOVE Conservative ideals.

You mean opposition to health care reform? No we don’t love that.

You mean tax cuts for the rich? No we don’t love that.

You mean privatized Social Security? No we don’t love that.

You mean ending Medicare? No we don’t love that.

You mean opposition to Obama’s jobs bill? No we don’t love that.

You mean “Family Values”? Yes, we all have families.

Americans want safety nets, higher taxes for the rich, real healthcare reform, and the jobs bill. Most of us even approve of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Call them what you want, but those are not your ideals we share.

Who isn't paying? The 43% of American tax payers, most of whom are Democrats, who pay zero income tax? I'm pretty sure on this post no less I've very clearly articulated we all should be paying 9-9-9%. That means you, me, Bill Gates... whoever.

As for the validity of the war, we've beat that horse to death. Bottom line is, I sided with the Republicans against my party, and I don't regret it. I know there weren't "lies" because of what I've seen up close with my own eyes. The only ones I recall during the last ten years who lied were Democrats. Seriously, without hyperbole that's what I've seen. That's more than you can say, having never been "over there." George Bush was DEFINITELY representing me and the majority of the country when he ordered me to invade Iraq. And he was DEFINITELY representing me when he ordered me back for the surge. I'll admit the surge wasn't popular in 2006, but the majority of people look back and see it was the best course of action because it worked.

Free,You do understand your 9-9-9 thing would increase taxes for most of us and lower them for the rich? I thought you were against all tax increases. But since you revere the elite...somebody else has to pay.

Thank you for the “link-a-palooza”. As much as you love typing “wrong” your links don’t prove much.

I guess FOX(R)’s favorite poll Rasmussen is the only poll that counts. Figures.

Why do 43% of Americans pay no federal income tax? Where are all the good jobs? Republicans and corporatist have off-shored their jobs and now they have McJobs. The majority do not think Iraq was a “good war”. Fact.

I've seen up close with my own eyes

So where are those “Nukular” aluminum tubes Bush told us about? How about the Saddam/al-Qaeda party photos? Bush said he had “connections” with them. How about the stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons? “biological labs”? “Aerial drones”? Well?

All lies.

Reagan’s popularity: Isn’t that special? He’s remembered on Presidents Day. Wonder what it would be without FOX(R)? Seems Ronnie is big in the years Republicans dominate the government and media as well.

Reagan was the top vote getter in 2001, 2005, and now 2011. Americans as a group have a propensity to mention recent presidents, not surprising given that the average American constantly hears about and from presidents in office during their lifetime, and comparatively little about historical presidents long dead. Four of the five most recent presidents are in the top 10 greatest presidents list this year -- Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan.

Implications:This "greatest president" question is open-ended, meaning that respondents are asked to name a president off the top of their head. This type of measurement tends to increase the mention of recent presidents.

Or the number of times Reagan is mentioned reverently on FOX(R) maybe? No other president has such a propaganda network. Yeah, Reagan over George Washington says a lot about how ignorant Americans are of history.

Health care reform:A majority of respondents to a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey said they would like to see a repeal of President Barack Obama’s national healthcare law, which will go into effect in 2014.

On the other side, 36 percent were somewhat against a repeal, and 26 percent were strongly against it.

Those respondents who thought Obamacare would be bad for the country tipped just past the halfway mark at 52 percent, while just 34 percent believed it would improve American life.

Almost half of respondents with health insurance, 42 percent, think it is likely that they will be forced to change their benefits.

Those with insurance were more strongly in support of repeal.

The “I got mine and screw you” crowd speaks. So this convoluted poll says 62% were somewhat or strongly against repeal. Wow. The Right has frightened 42%. Looks like most people want real healthcare reform anyway, not corporate wealthcare.

Tax cuts for the Rich:51% according to Rasmussen(R). 51%...What is the margin of error there?

Seventy-two percent of respondents to a Washington Post/ABC News poll said they'd support raising taxes on people who make $250,000 or more, while 27 percent said they'd oppose it.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-support-budget-deal-but-oppose-cuts-to-major-programs/2011/04/19/AFK5077D_graphic.html

Let’s split the difference.

Social Security:USA Today:The only policy options that command majority support are imposing the (SS) payroll tax on all the wages of higher-income workers — the amount is now capped — and limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.

This means we want to keep it.

OWS,LA Times:

Still, there was a strong populist thread against both big business and government in the responses, with 78% of the respondents saying Wall Street bears a great deal or a fair amount of blame for the struggling economy. But more people, 87%, said the same about the central government.

Okjimm,Free is our dyed-in-the-wool Randian Libertarian Neocon. He votes for Libertarians and is completely loyal to the Big Money agenda. (Think Kochs) He was an avid crusader for Bush in Iraq, bless his heart. And has a true blue faith in the words of our former War President and his Big Dick. Not so much a believer in the guy who got bin-Laden and Khadafy, though. Ya gotta draw the line with those terrorist-coddling socialists.

He doesn't vote for Republicans so much as he believes them. You know, profits over people, power of elites over the majority, etc.

He is as honest as his authoritarian beliefs allow him to be, with the requisite side of sociopathic disregard for the underclasses.

Dave... I really don't want to dis folks.... which is why, of late, I do not get into political discussions...especially the sound byte kind. Two years of collegiate Varsity debate, a degree in communications... ah, I am a old, disenchanted child... I wish things were better....and only see them getting worse. Thank goodness for beer. ;)

Okjimm,Then you know there's little real debate in these discussions. I debated in high school. My career ended when I snuck three bottles of wine in a brief case to enjoy on the bus ride home. I called it my "Affirmative Plan". It went over well, until the coach asked, "What's that smell?" The liquid "evidence" was gone, but the bottles remained.

Dave, Affirmative Plan indeed! I got into collegiate debate because I did not make the football team.... discovered there was a type of girl that was attracted to 'intellectuals' and got to travel to exotic spots like Central Michigan, Duluth State, S Dak State, UW-Whitewater, UW-Superior... and got to stay in really really swanky Holiday Inns.

Broadcast electronics was my education with minor in American history. Dropped out cause I was making boatload of money in sales. Found out it was far more profitable selling televisions than fixing them.

Anyway Free Guy; many here love to use charts and quotes. Heathen republican is the chartinet son of gun I ever saw.

Me? I look at results. The stimulus kept us out of depression and led to huge gains for wall Street. Case in point; I took over my own investment portfolio after my old broker sat on his ass while the investments he had me tanked. Since may of 2009 when I fird him, I'm up close to 200%. And this is an amateur.

What drives the market up or down the most is government. When government is taking action, or even talking about taking action, the market goes up. I buy on this information and ignore charts and trends as they are bullshit. trends tupically show up or down long after it's profitable or money saving to act on them. A good headline from the fed or White House moves stuff. Bailouts make me money. Threats to not bailout cost me and the markets.

Face the facts Free Guy and other righties. You are dupes. The people bankrolling your candidates, mine also, I am Truth101, want this to continue. The problem is your side campaigns on less government while making sure more goes to their benefactors. it's the poor and middle class that will get less as long as dupes like you vote republican.

Yes, we're all better off because Goldman Sachs didn't go out of business. I sit up nights thanking Barak Obama and George Bush for covering JP Morgan and Citi Group's bad bets. Screw it, from now on why don't we bail out the poor suckers who throw their paychecks down the drain in Vegas while we're at it?

Dubya likes to talk about regulations, we had all the regulation we needed. It was called "Going out of business."

Well, not on GWB and Barak Obama's watch!

What drives the market up or down the most is government.

Well kind of. I'd say prices and supply were number 1 and 2, with out government being number 3. Government marches up that ladder I admit as it takes more and more control of... prices and supply. Which it does more and more, every day. Pretty soon it will indeed be #1.

When government is taking action, or even talking about taking action, the market goes up.

Then please explain the United States economy from 1930-1940 and `2007-today please? Prices and markets work, not command decisions made in D.C. The market is far too complex for politicians to control. The more they try to control it, the more sick they make it. You're buying into the "fatal conceit."

I also don't buy and sell on trends either, I buy and sell on sound investments from fundamentally good companies when it comes to my portfolio. I don't make huge gains, but I do make steady ones. You can invest in whatever winner government picks this week, but as Solindra or GM should show you this is not a long term strategy for profits. Soldindra was probably a great buy two years ago and today the stock holders who didn't bail out are ass out.

Sure when a stock like say, Fannie Mae tanks to like 7.00 a share when you buy and recovers to 14.00 (from 32.00) you've made a 100% profit but over all across the economy you've got a 50% mean loss of value. Good for you, but bad for the whole of us long term. Now I'm all for you making money, but our government can't make policy based on short selling. Long term you're looking at a debt structure caused by entitlement programs and these bail outs that is totally unsustainable. When the government defaults on debt, all that money you made very quickly will be worth zero. You could have a 100 million green backs in the bank - not worth the paper it's printed on. This is a real danger as our spending to GDP and debt to GDP rates climb more and more out of control.

What costs you money isn't the government not bailing out your company you hold stock in... but the bad decisions of your company you chose to invest in. That's your problem, not the taxpayer's problem. If you take a bath on an investment, it's your own fault. Suck it up and drive on, don't expect anyone else to cover your losses.

if I have a bad week and drop a few grand millions of people's retirement accounts aren't in danger of being gone forever Free Guy.

I invest short term for the long term.

Look at today. Just about everything is up because European governments say they will take care of the debt situation.

By the end of the week Germany will announce reservations about doing something and the market will dip. I will be buying on the dip. It may be Ford, Solutia or Corning. Or all three.

I know Libs making profit pisses off righties. Would you be pissed off less had AIG and the other been allowed to go under, forcing a government takeover of the trillions in accounts they control? Also, they were only insured up to 100k at the time. Stock losses weren't insured at all. All that would have had to been paid by the FDIC. More money from government. And I doubt the fees paid by the banks to the FDIC would have covered the losses.

I'll take a government that keeps the markets and the world economies safe from scumbags Free Dude. If trusting investment bankers to do what's right is your belief then it's you and the right who suffer from naivity.

No, you making money absolutely does not piss me off. And on the short term, you will make money. But we can't make national policy to improve your portfolio is my point. I am not interested in spending tax dollars so that Truth can get paid. I am not for taking from one person and defacto giving to another. This is what you are talking about, even though you don't see it that way. It is what it is.

Take Morgan Stanley for example. They made very stupid bets on sub prime home loans - and without TARP they'd be either out of business and liquidated for sold to another fund. But no, so people like you didn't have to loose money, government went and borrowed 1.2 trillion dollars to bail you out.

I'm sorry, I don't want to cover your losses... and most Americans don't want to either. I'm pretty sure Dubya here even would tell you what I'm going to tell you... tough shit and buy a helmet.

Government can't keep doing this, or it's going to bankrupt itself. Now I'm hardly a socialist, but even as a Libertarian I think some government is necessary. I bankrupt government won't make you money. And it surely won't help your investment portfolio.

Would you be pissed off less had AIG and the other been allowed to go under

Yes.

forcing a government takeover of the trillions in accounts they control?

I would suggest government not take them over under any circumstances. I'm saying the stock holders should have simply taken a loss, the employees found other jobs, and the customers found another liability carrier.

Stock losses weren't insured at all.

To a degree they were. For example, I held stock in Bear Sterns and Morgan Stanley in 2007. I lost 100% on BS, but while the value of my stock at Morgan dropped it didn't cease to exist. I lost a percentage instead of the whole sha-bang. That was because of government, and that was government covering a loss no two ways about it.

I'll take a government that keeps the markets and the world economies safe from scumbags

Government wouldn't have needed to do anything, they would have all gone out of business. It was the "too big to fail" mentality that screwed it up. Yeah I took a loss on Bear Sterns (I was stuck in Iraq a million miles away from a computer to get out in time) but that's the nature of the game.

"As for 'corporatist' or whatever that means... I'll say it one time... slowly... so you can understand once an for all. I support keeping government out of business with as much intensity as your average Democrat supports keeping religion out of government." [emphasis my own]

But do you support, "with as much intensity", keeping business out of government?

Free0352, then by that same logic, government, or what has been commonly known in this country as We the People, has every right to participate in business (i.e., regulate and monitor; charter and/or deny that privilege).

And letting business run government more than government can regulate business is why we have the Corporate States of America. We are all second class citizens taking the back seat to corporate "persons" and the richest elites that buy the politicians.

It ain't a democracy, it ain't a republic, and it ain't a democratic republic. It is bribery fed corporatocracy, of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. It is Republican Corporatism.

Nope, I support a double standard. I think just about anyone can participate in government, so long as they're citizens. They can even use their companies. Government? Hands off.

Government isn't "the people" and if you believe that I've got a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

We are all second class citizens taking the back seat to corporate "persons" and the richest elites that buy the politicians.

So join a group and buy your own. Oh wait you did, Barak Obama is President.

Just because you suck at politics and you can't influence your representative... don't take it out on those of us who know how. I'm a "little guy" yet through the NRA, Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works I collectively share great influence.

You guys just complain about it on your blog. The only reason you're looking at the back of the seat is because you can't or won't engage and that's your own fault.

Free,So I "suck" at politics because I disagree with the Big Money anti-democracy agenda and am not wealthy. And you don't suck because you advocate for the interests of the elites over the majority.

Right. That would make you a tool of the anti-democracy elites. As we all know it takes less courage and insight to side with the rich and powerful economic royalists than with the rest of us. Sort of like the colonial Tories siding with the rich and powerful monarch. Democracy’s for chumps.

Ok, at least my conscience is clear, bleeding heart that I may be. We already know about your conscience not being exactly the strongest aspect of your personality. But fear not, your side nearly always wins. Big Money usually does. This is why we underdogs need more courage and awareness. All the Fat Cats need is deception and FOX(R), redundancy intended, to advance their agenda.

Oh, and your article is only referring to individuals in the financial sector. The corporate PAC's and lobbyists are going mostly to Republicans.

Thank you, again, for acknowledging Obama is a corporatist. Did you know both parties are largely bought by Big Money? One party is completely bought and paid for, and in exclusive service to the economic royalists. Yes sir, that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

You seem delighted to point out the obvious, and what I’ve consistently been asserting. I will add Obama is somewhat less a corporatist than all the Republicans, therefore my interests are in voting for him over any Republican.

As far as that bridge in Brooklyn, although I know you don't own it (and therefore can't sell it to me, or anyone, for that matter) because it's part of the "commons", the day isn't far off when private interests will own it, and all resources that are owned in common, due to the corporatism and resulting corporate-state that you so adamantly promote and believe in.

One thing's very clear to me, however, and that is you don't believe in democracy; you support, and even fight for, the increasingly larger corporatocracy that has invaded and taken over our land. Congratulations again! You've been bought!

So I "suck" at politics because I disagree with the Big Money anti-democracy agenda and am not wealthy.

Yeah I'd say dude, when pretty much the whole premise for this blog is "anti corporatism" and you're voting for Barak Obama (Goldman Sachs)

Yeah, that's a fail dude, any way you cut it. Thats like being anti heavy metal and then voting for Slayer. The only person being tricked and manipulated here, is... um to put it delicately you.

Did you know both parties are largely bought by Big Money?

Yes. That's always been the case. What you guys don't seem to grasp is that I accept that because that's the way it will always be and always has been in every system of government ever... from the USSR to France to you name it. I look at politicians like I do NASCAR Drivers. I vote for the one with the sponsorships I agree with. I suppose you do too, but it's kinda funny when you get all preachy with the corporatism stuff and then vigorously campaign for Barak Obama whose like the Michael Jordon of corporate crony capitalism.

you don't believe in democracy

Sure I do. Everybody gets a vote. I just realize the obvious, that political campaigns aren't free, they cost money. That money doesn't grow on trees, it has to come from private donors. People who own businesses have a right to put up that money just as much as you do. What it boils down to is, I don't like rules.

You seem to love them. You know rules, they go hand-in-hand with freedom right? Yeah, not really. Seems to me the only freedom Democrats defend anymore is the right for a man to marry another man and a woman to abort her baby. Beyond that, you're a slave to the state. It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. You only have two choices with government, servant or on your own.

I'll take on my own every time, and that's why I vote the way I do. I vote to shrink government any way I can, to render it as powerless as possible. The best way to do that is to deprive it of money.

I vote to advance two goals. To get rid of as many rules as possible, and to starve government of as much money as possible. That maximizes my personal freedom. Both the freedom to do whatever I want and my economic freedom, to earn, keep, and spend any old way I want.

Democrats stand in the way of that more than Republicans. Libertarians are the only party that actively shares my goals. That's why I don't really bother with advocating laws anymore, or even repealing laws. If government doesn't have any money, it can't do anything anyway. I have simple wants as a voter.

I want a strong national defense, I want courts to peacefully settle disputes in, and really that's about all I want. Everything beyond that, I'm all for starving it of funding. If that's minority that's fine, I don't care. It IS a Democracy, and we minorities get a vote too.

Free,I guess there's some comfort in a simplistic "libertarian" view of no rules and no government authority to regulate economic power.

If you want the constitutional power to regulate commerce removed, you can kiss the rest of the constitution goodbye, too. Sounds like your Utopia will be a neo-feudalist hell on earth. The power of wealth will be able to dictate what your freedoms will be. They will abolish minimum pay and workplace safety rules. Your “economic freedom” will be to work for Chinese wages in Chinese working conditions.

How many freedoms have the Republicans defended? Not one of mine. Never mind your firearm confiscation fiction. Patriot Act? Warrantless surveillance? Yeah, those are the guys setting your “freedom agenda”.

NOW you say it is a democracy?? That’s news. What democracy is that? How many peoples’ right to vote is defended by Republicans? None. They are actively suppressing voters.

How about the right to collective bargaining? No, can’t have that either. Seems gays and women are not the only people Republicans want to strip rights from.

How about the right to safety nets like Social Security and Medicare? Nope, that's socialism. Every man for himself.

How about the middle class standard of living since the Reagan corporatist coup? Not so good. Poverty is on the rise too. You can bet we’ll see more of that in the Right’s “brave new world”.

Big Money in politics? Your young age prevents you from having other times to compare. You were part of the “Reagan Youth”.

I accept that because that's the way it will always be and always has been in every system of government ever. Well then, you accept the tyranny of the minority.

Guess what. It hasn’t always been this way. It is getting worse. The Right has made sure of it and shall make it more so.

How about the elites’ share of the nation’s wealth? Share of influence on public policy? Share of taxes? The same? No young man, not at all. All gains in power and wealth are to the tyranny of the minority, Where’s that trickle down Reagan promised? It went up. Is this too complicated for you?

History will become clearer to you eventually if you pay attention.

One day when you get to be my age you may notice the craphole this country will have become, thanks to Rightist rule. Nothing is, or will be better, thanks to them. You will blame liberals for whatever happens because you cannot fathom the degradation caused by Republicans and rule by the economic royalists. Your masters like the Kochs are pulling Republican puppet strings. They are getting what they want. What are you getting?

Have a nice future and thank the Kochs and Republicans for it.

I’ll just be that haunting little voice in the back of your skull saying, “I told you”.

I guess there's some comfort in a simplistic "libertarian" view of no rules and no government authority to regulate economic power.

Yes there is.

, you can kiss the rest of the constitution goodbye, too.

Our economy is becoming more and more mixed as the years go by, simply look at the level of regulation between 1920 and now for example, and yet... gasp... our country is less free- at least according to you. What does that say about doubling down on regulation and government intrusion as you suggest.

Sounds like your Utopia will be a neo-feudalist hell on earth.

No, that was during the Obama Presidency while he had the super majority.

The power of wealth will be able to dictate what your freedoms will be.

Only Government can do that, hence me wanting to neuter it. The Koch brothers can't take your rights away, but the police can.... and the IRS is at heart a law enforcement agency.

They will abolish minimum pay and workplace safety rules.

Then I won't work there. I may even... gasp... work for myself.

Your “economic freedom” will be to work for Chinese wages in Chinese working conditions.

China is a socialist country. What does that say for socialism and government intervention? You've admitted yourself you're a socialist, then laughably you use a socialist country as your example of low wages and poor working conditions. Let me help you out, government intervention always leads to poor working conditions and low wages. BTW, how free are those Chinese in the worker's utiopia? Yeah, well at least they don't have a "wealthiest 1%" right?

They are actively suppressing voters.

Yes of course, because expecting a person to present a photo ID when voting to prevent voter fraud which would prevent Democrats like Al Franken from stealing elections... and making it impossible for Democrats to have dead people vote for them 16 times as we all know is an assault on our democratic freedoms we cannot tolerate. / sarcasim.

How about the right to collective bargaining?

I just reread the Constitution. I missed the part where the founders put in collective bargaining. That's a problem, since we all know that forcing people against their will to join unions so those unions can donate to Democrat Party candidates is an assault on our democratic freedoms. After all, rich people giving money of their own free will is terrible but forcing people into unions is just as American as apple pie.

How about the right to safety nets like Social Security and Medicare?

I missed the part in the bill of rights where it says "All citizens will be forced into a crappy retirement program and a shitty insurance program even if they do not want it, and both will be a huge rip off and the money these programs raise will be raided by The Congress and the funds raided will be spent on random and stupid things which Democrats will use to buy votes." We all know that forcing people into SS which provides such a bad return on investment that if it were a private company the leadership of it would be jailed. Yes, getting ripped off is a traditional American Freedom to be sure.

Every man for himself

God I wish. I'm so sick of it being "Every man for anyone but themselves."

I've lived in Germany, Japan, and The U.A.E. This has given me ample time to compare and contrast systems of government and ways of doing things you could probably only dream of. It's not your age pal, it's the millage. What I've learned in my very long 33 years is this. Government is generally bad. Freedom is 99% of the time the answer, and the worst thing in any language you will ever here is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Free,I’ve never seen such an impassioned defense of the decline of the American standard of living. You epitomize the "Virtue of Selfishness". (I understand that is a compliment for you.) I'm impressed with your devotion to your beliefs. Complete with misrepresentations, quoting an aristocrat, and above all the arrogant presumption of authoritative knowledge of every country you ever took a piss in. If mileage were wisdom, truck drivers would be philosophers.

You had free health care in all of them didn't you? Even if you were not in the military, many of those nations would have taken care of you. I bet the streets were safer there too. Damn socialists.

How many people go bankrupt from health care costs in the more civilized countries you were fortunate enough to drop excrement in? Do they want our health care system? Our incarceration rate? Our poverty rate? How about our life expectancy? How about our education system? You must know all about them.

I’ve never seen such an impassioned defense of the decline of the American standard of living.

Right back atcha.

You epitomize the "Virtue of Selfishness". (I understand that is a compliment for you.)

Yup, that's right it is. Objectivist and proud of it.

and above all the arrogant presumption of authoritative knowledge of every country you ever took a piss in.

As opposed to you who not only thinks he knows everything but that he's qualified to run the lives of others.

You had free health care in all of them didn't you?

Health Care is never free. We pay for it in the military, in fact we pay in non monitary ways much more than your average person with insurance. When was the last time you had to drive down an IED lined road? See my point?

Even if you were not in the military, many of those nations would have taken care of you.

No, you still have to pay money for health care everywhere you go. Even in Canada. Go check it out.

I bet the streets were safer there too.

NO, the streets were no safer in most of those places. Norway yes, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Somalia, Iraq? Not so much. I dare you to travel to the UAE and walk the streets alone. Try it in east Frankfurt? How about South Moscow? How bout Abaline Kansas? Just depends on where your at, not the level of Socialism.

How many people go bankrupt from health care costs in the more civilized countries you were fortunate enough to drop excrement in?

In most of the European countries I've visited Health Care has bankrupted the entire country. Do you not watch the news?

Do they want our health care system?

If they're smart they do. That's why all their rich people come to our country to go see a doctor.

Our incarceration rate? Our poverty rate? How about our life expectancy? How about our education system? You must know all about them.

Oh, and as for places in the United States that were dangerous, places I've lived like Detroit and Chicago and NYC, they've been run by Democrats for eons and have vast governmental systems. What does this say for the Democrat idea of a welfare society? Most residents of Detroit are on welfare, would you walk down Woodward at 2AM?

I bet you'd walk down main street in Abilene Kansas, which is near where I live and is the most Conservative place I've ever been. though it's hardly a "wealthy" place. There is a myth that being poor makes you a criminal. Not true. My grandmother who knew poverty you and I can only dream of during your favorite President's administration once told me that blaming crime on poverty is a terrible insult. Morality is one thing a poor person can have just as much of as a rich person.